LISTENING TO THE CITY - Amazon S3

AMERICASPEAKS

LISTENING TO THE CITY

FEBRUARY 7, 2002 | SOUTH STREET SEAPORT

A PROJECT OF THE

Center for Excellence in New York City Governance, NYU/Wagner • Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems, NYU/WagnerCenter for Real Estate and Urban Policy, NYU/School of Law • Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, NYU/Wagner

Engaging citizen voices in governance

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

More than 600 concerned citizens,civic leaders and public officialsfrom throughout the metropoli-

tan region came together on February 7,2002, for the first “Listening to the City”forum. This modern town hall meetingbrought together participants from allwalks of life—downtown residents andworkers, families of victims and survivors,emergency and rescue workers, businessand property owners, interested citizensand community leaders—all committed tocharting a bold new vision for LowerManhattan and honoring those who losttheir lives on September 11.

This forum was organized by theCivic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown NewYork. Its goal was to provide people wholive and work in the region and otherswhose lives have been irrevocably alteredby the terrorist attacks with the opportu-

nity to profoundly influence the rebuildingof Lower Manhattan and the creation of afitting memorial. During the day-longevent at the South Street Seaport, partici-pants spoke, listened, bonded and learned.By the close of the forum, they had forgeda common vision of the values and princi-ples for rebuilding that represent the aspi-rations, memories and pride of New Yorkand the metropolitan region.

Future forums—including a large “cit-izen summit” called “Listening to theCity II,” with several thousand partici-pants, planned for the summer of 2002—

will evaluate specific rebuilding plans andproposals as they develop.

What emerged on February 7 was aremarkable consensus that in order totransform Lower Manhattan into theworld’s first great 21st century urbanspace, a balance must be struck—betweenresidential and office construction;between strengthening the financial sec-tor and building a broader economicbase; between restoring real estate andattending to social and cultural needs;and between the urgency to rebuild andthe need for deliberative planning.

Participants expressed a commonvision for a powerful memorial that is inte-grated into the very fabric of downtown.This memorial would honor the “everydaypeople” who were lost, as well as the hero-ism, sacrifice and resiliency that were—andcontinue to be—demonstrated throughoutthe city, region, nation and world.

The depth of the exchange amongparticipants was strengthened by their considerable age, income, racial, geograph-ic and gender diversity and the unique perspectives that informed the discussionsat each ten-to-twelve person round table.Many participants represented communi-ties whose voices often go unheard.

Guided by a trained facilitator, par-ticipants at each table group were able tohear, learn from and reach consensus

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH “LISTENING TO THE CITY”Using their polling keypads, participants indicated their overall level of satisfaction with the forum and the technology that was used.

TOP: Intimate round table discussions promotedthe exchange of a variety of perspectivesamong participants. LEFT: A participant listensas ideas flow around the table.

COVER:©LENNY LIND 2002;GROUP:©LENNY LIND 2002;PORTRAIT:PHOTO COURTESY OF AMERICASPEAKS

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

2 | Listening to the City

40%

47%Very LowLowSomewhat LowSomewhat HighHighVery High

OVERALL LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH FORUM

SATISFACTION WITH TECHNOLOGY

33%

1%1%3%

22%

41%

9%3%

Somewhat LowSomewhat HighHighVery High

Listening to the City | 3

with viewpoints that were both innova-tive and unfamiliar. One participantexpressed appreciation for “the opportu-nity to brainstorm with people from dif-ferent walks of life.”

Also joining the discussions weremany key decision-makers who will ulti-mately lay the foundation for the redevel-opment process. Charles Gargano, Chair-man & CEO of the Empire StateDevelopment Corporation, emphasizedthat “our diverse communities [must]remain united...so we may act and achievegreat things for this city, this state of NewYork, and this nation, together.”

Facilitated by AmericaSpeaks, anationally-recognized non-profit organi-zation, “Listening to the City” participantsengaged in intimate round table discus-sions while using innovative decision-sup-port technologies to instantly share theirideas and recommendations with all thosepresent. Each participant was exposed to

a host of diverse perspectives, both byengaging in rich small-group conversa-tions and by viewing the results from theother 60 tables in real-time.

Overall, those who participated in“Listening to the City” were quite satisfiedwith both the significant work that wasaccomplished on February 7 and theusage of this model for gaining publicinput. “It was very informative and bene-ficial,” said one participant. “I now have agood overview of what must be accom-plished after the needs of all concernedare evaluated and, hopefully, balanced.”

The rich public input that was gener-ated during “Listening to the City” will beprovided directly to decision-makers andorganizations involved in the efforts torebuild downtown New York. At this sum-mer’s Listening to the City II, several thou-sand participants will rely upon the visionsand principles agreed to on February 7 toevaluate specific rebuilding proposals.

“we have a

once in a century

opportunity,

and it is up to us

to take advantage

of it.

”— Daniel DoctoroffDeputy Mayor for Economic Development

and Rebuilding, New York City

PORTRAIT:©LENNY LIND 2002;TECHNOLOGY:PHOTO COURTESY OF AMERICASPEAKS

One of the most innovative elements of “Listening to the City” wasits usage of the AmericaSpeaks design for citizen engagement,which combines interactive technology with face-to-face dia-logue. This unique model ensures that the full breadth of partic-ipants’ ideas are captured, shared and listened to—both by one’simmediate tablemates and the assemblage as a whole.

Participants engaged in intimate 10-to-12-person round-table discussions, each led by a trained facilitator who was skilledin small-group dynamics. Networked wireless laptop computersserved as “electronic flipcharts” to record ideas generated duringthe small group discussions. Each table's input was instanta-neously transmitted to a “theme team” (composed of CivicAlliance and AmericaSpeaks staff) that identified the strongestconcepts and themes from the table discussions and reportedthem back to all participants.

Based on the content of the round-table discussions, the“theme team” quickly developed a set of priorities and questionsthat were then posed from the main stage. Each participant useda wireless polling keypad to vote on these questions and theresults were instantly displayed on large screens, allowing par-ticipants to receive immediate feedback about where their per-spectives fit within the thinking of the larger group. This designalso allowed for modification of the agenda to correspond moreclosely to the tenor of the discussions.

Additional services that were available to participants includ-ed sign language translation, facilitators for Spanish and Chinesespeakers, bilingual and large-print copies of the participant guide,Safe Horizon constituent services and grief counselors.

SUPPORTING DIALOGUE WITH TECHNOLOGY

“ Listening to the City” is a project of the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown NewYork, a coalition of over 85 civic, business, environmental, community, universityand labor groups seeking consensus strategies for redeveloping Lower Manhattan.The Civic Alliance was convened by the Regional Plan Association in partnership withNYU/Wagner, New School University, the Pratt Institute and AmericaSpeaks.


the depression of West Street, in order toimprove access between downtown, thewaterfront, and Battery Park City.

Business and Economic DevelopmentBusiness and economic development wasat the forefront of many table discussions.About twice as many participants sup-ported the preservation of Lower Manhat-tan’s financial dominance than those whostressed that the financial sector should—or, inevitably, would—become more dis-persed throughout the city and region.

Many stressed the immediate needsof local small businesses. Participants calledfor job creation and retention, as well asincentives to keep businesses downtown.

The value of retail outlets—for resi-dents and for attracting tourists—was wide-ly agreed-upon. However, while someparticipants proposed the creation of ashopping center (possibly in conjunctionwith a transportation hub), others pre-ferred traditional street-level shopping.

Forum participants were charged with developing a shared vision for the redevelopment of LowerManhattan that would inspire the city to greatness and drive the rebuilding process. When asked fortheir vision of what downtown would look like in 2012, if it was rebuilt ideally, each table identifiedthe most important values that emerged from their group discussions. Through the wireless com-

puter network, these ideas were submitted to a “theme team” that identified the most prevalent themes and noted the ideasthat participants felt strongly about but may not have been shared by tablemates.

Land UseThere was clear consensus that LowerManhattan should be rebuilt as a vibrant,24-hour mixed-use community with addi-tional affordable housing. The areashould be “a real New York neighbor-hood having diverse features—residen-tial, small and big businesses, stores,parks,” said one participant.

Another theme was additional openand green space, as well as improvedaccess to and usage of the waterfront.“There is an opportunity to…[use] riveraccess for both transportation andleisure,” explained one participant.

There was much consensus thatwhatever is built on the WTC site shouldbe of high aesthetic value—“beautiful,”“grand,” or “inspired”—and that architectsshould be consulted through a designcompetition.

Making Lower Manhattan “the mostvisited place on earth” received significantsupport. “If we do it right, people willcome from everywhere,” a participantstressed. Many want to see restoration ofthe street grid and more attention paid to connecting Lower Manhattan withChinatown.

Strikingly divergent opinions wereexpressed about the height of new con-struction on the WTC site. Many seek tomake a “visual statement with a tall land-mark,” while others disagree for aesthet-ic, safety and emotional reasons.

“restore the

exclamation point of

lower manhattan.

”

VISION AND VALUES

TransportationTransportation discussions largelyfocused on the need for Lower Manhat-tan to be more accessible to the city andregion. Some specific proposals includedbuilding a Second Avenue subway,improving access to Battery Park Cityand expanding bus service.

Many favored the creation of atransportation hub to allow easy connec-tions between different types of trans-portation. Participants called for betterconnections across the region, namelybetween New Jersey, Queens, Brooklynand downtown.

Additional themes included improv-ing pedestrian access and closing morestreets to vehicular traffic. Others endorsed

Drawing by Nusa Maal

ILLUSTRATION PHOTO:KAREN CHIN

VOTING RESULTS FOR “MOST ESSENTIAL VISION ELEMENTS”

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

PERC

ENTA

GE O

F AL

L VO

TES

(EAC

H PA

RTIC

IPAN

T HA

D T

HREE

VO

TES)

Vibrant, 24 hr Seamless Memorial should Open space; Incorporate Unique identity; Restore Most visitedmixed-use transportation be integrated active affordable classy and street grid place on earthcommunity hub into total picture waterfront housing aesthetic;

“inspirational”

The Local CommunityThe replacement, improvement, or cre-ation of services for downtown residentsreceived much attention. Desired “basic”or “essential” services included postoffices, libraries, garbage disposal, com-munity centers, and parking facilities.

Incorporating affordable housingwould make the downtown residentialcommunities more diverse, participantsstressed. Downtown children could bebetter served through more high-qualitypublic schools, parks and a pedestrian-friendly environment.

Cultural Events and InstitutionsProposals for more cultural institutionsincluded the creation of a “museummile,” free outdoor concerts, and publicarts projects in the downtown area.Many support the relocation of a major

cultural institution (such asthe NYC Opera or the U.N.)to Lower Manhattan.

Some also endorsed thecreation of athletic andrecreational facilities, anda stadium for professionalsports or the 2012 Olympics.

Social and Economic ImpactsWidespread concern wasexpressed about the continu-ing impacts of the WTC disas-ter on individuals and sociallydisadvantaged groups. Specif-ically mentioned were immigrant com-munities—especially Chinatown—andundocumented aliens who have not hadaccess to the same relief funds as otherimpacted workers and residents.

Aid to disabled and low-incomeNew Yorkers—through such specificmeasures as job training and placement,language assistance and general econom-ic assistance—was also stressed.

Health and Environmental IssuesBased largely on air quality concerns,many emphasized that government agen-cies should provide the public with moreinformation about health issues resultingfrom the attacks and the clean-up efforts.

Participants called for the rebuildingof downtown to represent “a new begin-ning” in energy conservation and use of sus-tainable technologies. Others emphasizedthat environmental impacts must not bedisproportionately felt by low-income orminority communities.

The Rebuilding ProcessAn open process where “the public [is]included in the decision-making, and every-one’s voice [is] heard and taken intoaccount,” was deemed crucial to therebuilding effort. Many stressed that whileaid must come quickly, decisions madeon rebuilding and the memorial shouldmove slowly enough to allow appropriatereflection, grieving and consideration ofinput from many voices.

Safety and SecurityParticipants sought to return a sense ofsafety to Lower Manhattan. While someproposed additional police officers, oth-ers maintained that though we “musthave actual safety and security…one can-not turn Manhattan into an armed campto ensure that security doesn’t go too far.”

“be inclusive of

all businesses

from the financial

community to the shoe

repair person.

”


VOTING RESULTS FOR “VISION ELEMENTS MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR”

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

PERC

ENTA

GE O

F AL

L VO

TES

(EAC

H PA

RTIC

IPAN

T HA

D T

HREE

VO

TES)

Memorial should Seamless Vibrant, 24 hr Restore Most visited Open space; Unique identity; Incorporatebe integrated transportation mixed-use street grid place on earth active classy and affordable

into total picture hub community waterfront aesthetic; housing“inspirational”

Sketch by forum participants


Given the human toll of 9/11, it was notsurprising that the most commonresponse was to create a memorial for thevictims and every person who was lost onSeptember 11th. This need to create amemorial for the victims was a commonthread that linked many discussions.

There was also agreement that thememorial should recognize that losseswere felt throughout the global communityand should speak to future generations. “If

The final segment of the day consisted of a discussion of the emotional significanceand design of the memorial. After viewing a video montage of the many impromptumemorials that were created throughout the world after September 11th, participantswere asked to discuss the issue of memorializing 9/11 in three different frameworks:

For whom are we creating the memorial? What is the essence of what we want to honor, remember and memorialize? What should the memorial be?

it’s a great space, it will be meaningful forall ages,” wrote one participant. Also dis-cussed were constructing the memorialfor children and for educational purposes.

Another prevalent theme was thatthe memorial should be created for thoseof us who remain. The more emotionalconnotation of the term “survivor” wasevident in the responses that the memori-al must be for the loved ones of the 9/11victims. “Most of the bodies will never befound,” said one participant. “This is theonly space that people will have to grieve.”

There were many heroes on Septem-ber 11th and there has been an extraordi-nary amount of heroism and altruism inthe weeks and months since then. Sub-stantial support emerged for creating the

memorial for the heroes – “for all the peo-ple who helped get people out; from res-cue workers to everyday citizens.”

Numerous participants believedthat we are creating the memorial for allof us, for everyone who needs to heal,remember and reflect on what hap-pened. Many also stressed that thememorial should be created for thenation, for New York and for New Yorkers.

Also deemed important was creatingthe memorial for the American valuesand ideals that were attacked—and theinnocence that was lost—at 8:46 a.m. onthat bright September morning. Partici-pants also discussed creating the memo-rial for “the WTC itself and what it stoodfor as a symbol of our global village.”

Discussion here shifted to the core valuesand concepts to be honored in thememorial. Once again, the most com-mon response was a desire to memorial-ize the essence of the individual victims: theinnocence, strength, diversity andcourage of these “everyday people.” “Thepeople that died here were civilians, notsoldiers,” said one participant. The need

to celebrate courage, sacrifice, resiliencyand altruism was frequently cited, as wasthe value of human life and the strengthof the human spirit.

Many sought to honor the heroism,volunteerism and unity that has flourishedthroughout the city, the nation and theworld. There was specific support for hon-oring the bravery of the rescue workers and

“the good that was brought out in people.” Memorializing lessons of this tragedy

—among them tolerance, peace and under-standing of other cultures—was a commontheme. Others sought to remember theunparalleled horror that we witnessed thatday. “A memorial should capture the enor-mity [and] shock of the event, the fragility ofour lives,” said one participant.

DEFINING A

MEMORIAL

For whom are we creating the memorial?

What is the essence we want to honor, remember and memorialize?

“everyone who died. everyone who

survived. everyone who helped.

”

ILLUSTRATION PHOTO:KAREN CHIN



Honoring American ideals and val-ues, including liberty, community anddemocracy, received widespread support,as did remembering our increasinglyinterdependent global community. Manystressed that although we are memorial-izing the past, we must continue to looktowards the future. “This was truly thebeginning of the millenium,” wrote one

participant. Some expressed a desire to memori-

alize the physical WTC structure, in orderto “remember the endless promise thetwin towers conveyed of American opti-mism,” as one participant explained.Other essential concepts to honor werehope, sacrifice, dialogue, compassion andthe triumph of “goodness over evil.”

When discussions turned to the detailsand design of a World Trade Centermemorial, many participants sketchedout intricate plans on sheets of paper oreven napkins. Some of the proposedideas correlate very closely with conceptsalready being discussed publicly, whileothers are quite innovative and new.

Not surprisingly, the most commonresponse was that thememorial should besomething that containsthe names, charactersand biographies of allthose who were lost onSeptember 11th, andmust also acknowledgethe victims whose nameswe do not know. Somespecific proposals includ-ed a brick path, a wallwith victims’ names, andflags of all the nationsthat lost people on 9/11.

There was a stronglevel of support for thememorial to function asan interactive, educa-tional museum,

with such purposes as telling the story of9/11, teaching non-violence and encourag-ing tolerance. Thanks to the ever-changing nature of a museumand its exhibits, it couldsustain its power forfuture generations.

Many pro-posed a livingmemorial thatincorporates naturalelements (such as water, grass, and light),that could “breathe life into the site,” as oneparticipant explained. Proposed memorialsincluded a reflection pond, a memorial park,gardens, and the planting of one tree foreach person who was lost. Specifically,many sought to include light and illumination,particularly through the current temporarymemorial of creating “two rays of light.”

A quiet space for prayer, reflection andremembrance that would “evoke an emo-tion and memory in people and allow peo-ple to pay respects” was widely supported.

Numerous participants consider theWTC area to be a sacred place or

gravesite. Some proposedsetting aside a private areawithin the memorial for

“the essential

message is that we

have suffered

losses but we survive

these events

and we go on.

”

families and mourners. A common sentiment was that the

memorial should include a section of thefaçade or some of the debris from theWTC site, potentially “with the names ofthe victims etched into the metal.” Manyhope that the memorial is firmly situatedon the footprint of the two towers. Proposalsfor a “golden globe that can be seen fromvery far away” concur with the reintroduc-tion of the sphere from the original plaza.

Additional proposals included thecreation of multiple memorials (namely, atGovernor’s Island), a cultural/arts centerand replicas of the twin towers. There wasalso a fair amount of debate on whetherthe memorial should be a “tall, iconicstructure” or “simple, but profound.”

What should the memorial be?

Sketches by forum participants


Many participants came to theforum with the traumatic eventsof September 11th still fresh in

their minds and heavy on their hearts.Given the unprecedented impact that thistragedy has had on our region, our liveli-hoods and our emotional well-being, it is atestament to the power of the event thatmost participants found “Listening to theCity” to be a productive, enriching, and,often, healing experience. At day’s end,fully 72% reported a high or very highlevel of satisfaction with what was accom-plished during the course of the forum.

Those who attended found them-selves at the South Street Seaport on thatcloudy Thursday morning for a variety ofreasons. Some came because of profes-sional and/or personal interest in LowerManhattan. One participant said simply “Iwork in the area. I miss it. I want to helprebuild it.” Others expressed their general

desire “to hear opinions and issues aroundrebuilding downtown New York.” Partici-pants valued the “constructive and mean-ingful dialogue” that they engaged in—bothat their table and with the larger group.

The style and concept behind thisinnovative democratic process was attrac-tive to one participant because of “hownew and risky it was.” Others appreciatedthe “atmosphere of respect and warmth,”particularly the unique design that allowedthem to develop a relationship with theirtablemates that spanned far beyond theimpersonal connections that are typicallymade between conference attendees. Onefacilitator explained that “a remarkable

bonding took place at our table com-posed of [people from] many differentbackgrounds, cultures and ethnic iden-

tities—but all Americans.” The technology utilized at “Listening

to the City” was widely praised. Eighty-seven percent of participants had a high orvery high level of satisfaction with how thetechnology supported the process. “Thiswas the first meeting I have been involvedin where advanced technology was such avaluable tool,” said one participant.

Many attended the event because ofthe value that was placed on communityinput and the diversity of those attending.One attendee expressed his “hope that lis-tening to many diverse voices can have areal impact on the future of Lower Man-hattan and New York City.”

VOICES

FROM THE

TABLES

Facilitator Jane Alpert, a downtown resident, wrote the following moving report:

As a general rule, New Yorkers don’t “share our feelings.” We get up and moveon. Yet the impact of September 11th left many of us shattered and numb. Asone of 60 facilitators, I came to hear others speak their minds about rebuildingLower Manhattan. But as a lifelong New Yorker, I also came for a sense of com-munity I hoped would be healing.

The nine of us at Table 29 started as strangers and ended our six-hoursession as warm acquaintances. The computers and keypads linked us to thelarger group, while the small-group format helped bring about closeness.

H.T, a choreographer, described how he fled his Chinatown office, thenreturned to find the lens of his videocamera moving in and out, seeking the van-ished buildings. “Even the machine had lost its focus,” he said.

Gene, a Port Authority economist, said, “My office lost 75 staff and 9 contractemployees. Since 9/11, I’ve been thrust into family issues. When you go into a room-

ful of children who lost a parent, you realize the impact of this event won’t go away.”On rebuilding downtown, we had a free-flowing, creative discussion. Every-

one wanted a neighborhood of “human scale,” with plenty of green space andeasy waterfront access. We agreed on a mix of residential and commercial build-ings, with space for art and performance. The neighborhood needed a thrivingeconomy, but one that put human beings first. There must be a compellingmemorial that is well-integrated into the overall design.

At the end came the hardest questions: Who was the memorial for? Whatshould it express? “It has to be about the incredibleness of that day,” someone said.“For all who died, and for the families.” “For everyone who will live afterward.”

The questions plunged us back into grief, and the answers were unsatis-fyingly vague. We were reminded how difficult these questions are for all NewYorkers, and how much more we will have to share to find the answers.

Participants from diversebackgrounds joined togetherto chart a new vision forDowntown New York.

PORTRAITS:ELENA OLIVO

A primary impetus for convening the Civic Alliance was to democratizethe planning process for rebuilding downtown. “Listening to theCity” was designed to reflect the region’s rich diversity while tar-

geting those most profoundly affected by the terrorist attacks—peo-ple who live and/or work downtown and families of victims whodied in the attacks.

At the start of the day, participants used their keypads to pro-vide important demographic information about who was inattendance. The results indicate that our goals of bringingtogether a representative cross-section of the region wereclearly accomplished on some key variables. Some importantstakeholders, however, were underrepresented.

For example, the gender balance was similar to theregion's mix and the proportion of middle-income participantsequaled their percentage in the region's population. However,the room included fewer low-income participants than is rep-resentative of the region. The racial and ethnic makeup of par-ticipants was close to the regional figures for Caucasians andAsian-Americans but fell short of matching the region's African-American, Hispanic and Mixed Race populations. The age stra-ta of the attendees was roughly equivalent to that of the region(with the exception of children).

Greater outreach to underrepresented communities is anintegral component in all future plans of the Civic Alliance,which is committed to ensuring that all voices of the region are inthe room and are heard.

Manhattan residents also comprised over half of the participants onFebruary 7, largely because of our focus on those who live and work downtown.Future events will cast a wider net, and include a greater proportion of residents from all five boroughs of the city, New Jersey, Connecticut and the rest of New York State.


WHO ATTENDED?

20%

9% 2%19%

50%

72%

4% 5% 8%

11%

53%

1%8%

2%

8%

2%

18%

8%

African AmericanAsian/Pacific IslanderWhiteMixed RaceOther

19 or younger20–3435–5455–6465 and older

ManhattanBrooklynBronxQueensStaten IslandOther New YorkNew JerseyOther U.S.

AGE

RESIDENCE

PERSONAL CONNECTION OF PARTICIPANTS TO EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11*

RACE

70%

80%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

PERC

ENT

Family Member Survivor At or Near Rescue Worker Resident of Work in Lower Professional, Interested of Victim of Attack Ground Zero Lower Manhattan Manhattan Government, Citizen

on 9/11 Civic Organization

*Participants identified themselves in as many categories as applied to them

A fter a full day of conversations,connections and, many times, con-sensus, participants were asked

how much confidence they had that theirinput would have an impact on what ulti-mately happens downtown. Fifty-fourpercent expressed a very high, high orsomewhat high level of confidence. Thir-ty-four percent had a somewhat low level,while 12% had a low or very low level ofconfidence that this forum would make adifference. These findings reinforce theCivic Alliance's determination to continueworking to ensure that voices of the pub-lic are heard—and listened to—as crucialdecisions about rebuilding downtown aremade in the coming months and years.

The Civic Alliance is closely coordi-nating its efforts with the planning processof the Lower Manhattan DevelopmentCorporation (LMDC) and other public,private and civic efforts. The Civic Allianceis also playing an integral role in the Munic-ipal Art Society’s Imagine New York project,which will obtain input from communitiesthroughout the region by holding visioningsessions in local firehouses, schools, church-es and other community institutions.

Decision-makers have been veryreceptive to the work of the CivicAlliance. “I applaud what you’re doing,”said Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff dur-ing his speech at the close of the forum.

The shared vision articulated during“Listening to the City” will be communi-

cated to decision-makers through vari-ous channels. On February 7, LouisTomson, President and Executive Direc-tor of the LMDC indicated that “thereport coming out of today’s work willbe something that we will rely on veryheavily as we go forward.”

The insights and ideas that emergefrom “Listening to the City” will alsoguide the Civic Alliance's eight workinggroups, which are addressing criticalissues involved in rebuilding. The Alliancewill submit a draft report to the LMDCto help them develop a master plan fordowntown New York.

The Civic Alliance is planning “Lis-tening to the City II” for the summer of2002, at which several thousand peoplefrom all over the region will review draftproposals and plans for rebuilding down-town that have been generated by theLMDC, Civic Alliance and others. Bythat time, it is likely that participants willbe asked to make choices and expressopinions on specific alternatives regardingthe future of Lower Manhattan.

Following “Listening to the City II,”the Civic Alliance will present a final reportto the LMDC, as well as to other relevantagencies and organizations. As New Yorkenters into this unprecedented stage of itsdevelopment, the Civic Alliance will con-tinue to play an active role in the planningprocess as decisions are made in the weeks,months and years to come.


“i look forward

to making an effort

that is going to be

worthy of...the

vision you have for

the future.

”— Louis TomsonPresident and Executive Director,

Lower Manhattan Development Corporation

NEXT STEPS

Very LowLowSomewhat LowSomewhat HighHighVery High

CONFIDENCE THAT THIS FORUMWILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE

43%

8%3% 5%

7%

34%

ILLUSTRATION PHOTO:KAREN CHIN;PORTRAIT:PHOTO COURTESY OF AMERICASPEAKS



COMING TOGETHER

THE CIVIC ALLIANCE TO REBUILD DOWNTOWN NEW YORKCONVENER: Regional Plan Association UNIVERSITY PARTNERS: New School University New York University Pratt Institute

CIVIC ALLIANCE MEMBERS: AIA – NY Alliance for Downtown NY American Inst. of Certified Planners APA – NY Architecture Research Inst. Asian American Fed. of NY ABNY BLCCCtr. for an Urban Future Ctr. for NYC Law Ctr. for Urban Research Century Fdtn. CBC CHPC Citizens Network for Sustainable Devpt. Citizens Union Columbia Univ. Ctr for Urban

Research & Policy Commonwealth Fund C.B. 1 Community Cartography CUNY Inst. Urban Systems Design Trust for Public Space Env’l Advocates Env’l Defense Env’l SimulationCtr. Fine Arts Fed. of NY Fiscal Policy Inst. 5 Borough Inst. Ford Fdtn. General Contractors Ass’n. Guggenheim Museum Housing First Hunter College Independence CommunityFdtn. Inst. for Urban Design J.M. Kaplan Fund Landair Project Resources Lincoln Square B.I.D Robert J. Milano Graduate School (New School University) Municipal Art SocietyNatural Resources Defense Council NY Building Congress NY Community Trust NY Immigration Coal. NYLCV NY New Visions NOW-LDEF NY Lawyers for Public Interest NYPIRGStraphangers NYS AFL-CIO NYU Brennan Ctr. for Justice NYU Ctr. for Excellence in NYC Governance NYU Inst. for Civil Infrastructure Systems (ICIS) NYU Inst. of Public Admin. NYU RealEstate Inst. NYU Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service NYU Rudin Ctr. for Transportation Policy & Management NYU Law School Ctr. for Real Estate & Urban Policy

Pace Univ. Parks Council Pratt Institute Ctr. for Community & Environmental Devpt. Prosperity NJ PRLDEF REBNY R.DOT Riverside South Planning Corp. Rockefeller Brothers FundRutgers Univ. Surdna Fdtn. Sustainable South Bronx Take the Field The Parks Council TWU Local 100 Tri-State Transportation Campaign Urbanomics Van Alen Inst. WeACT

Women’s City Club Women in Housing & Finance YMCA of Greater NY Representatives of the following public agencies have also attended meetings and expressed support: EmpireState Development Corporation NYC Department of City Planning Manhattan Borough President’s Office Port Authority New York New Jersey USDA Forest Service New Jersey Transit

FORUM PARTICIPANTS: 140 Nassau Residents Corp. 9/11 Memorial Fdtn. 9/11 United Services Grp. 9/11 Widows & Victims’ Families Ass’n. Aaron Design Abraham LincolnH.S. ABT Assoc. ACP Visioning & Planning AFSCME/DC 37 Airport Consulting Grp. Assoc. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Cmte. American Red Cross Applied ManagementTech. Arab-American Family Support Ctr. Aronon School Arts Int’l Asian American Arts Ctr. Asian American Arts Council Asian Americans for Equality AALDEF APICHAAsian Women in Business Aspen Inst. Atlantic Philanthropies Balmori Assoc. BPC Authority BPC Parks Conservancy Bazillion Bags Bechtel Infrastructure Corp. Bergin’sBeer & Wine Bar Black Men’s Health Crisis BMCC British Consulate General BF&J, Inc. Business Image Cabrini Immigrant Svcs. Canal West Coal. Cannon Design CapsoutoFreres Ctr. on Innovation Children’s Aid Society Chinatown Manpower Proj. Chinese American Planning Council Christian Children’s Fund Cicatelli Assoc. Circle of CommunityLeadership CitiBank Citizens Cmte. for NYC City Harvest City Project Civic Resources Grp. CJC Marketing Liz Claiborne Fdtn. Cleary Gottlieb Stern & Hamilton ClevelandHarp Collegiate Church Corp. Columbia Business Schl. Columbia Medical Schl. CWA, Local 1180 C.B. 2 C.B. 3 C.B. 11 Community Health Care Network Con EdisonConference Board Consortium for Worker Education Creative Time Cunningham Grp. Cushman & Wakefield Demos M.B. Dierickx Consultants Disabled in Action ofMetropolitan NY DMJM Harris Geraldine R. Dodge Fdtn. Educational Alliance EMS Empire State College Empire State Devpt Corp. EPA Epstein & Fass Assoc. Families ofSeptember 11th FATE FEMA FHA Fed. Reserve Bank of NY FTA Fiduciary Trust Int’l FDNY Floating Hosp. Fuunich Scudden Investments F6F Enterprise GABE GatewayPlaza Tenants Ass’n. Global Real Estate Partners GOLES Goodwill Industries Gotham Ctr. for NYC History Grand Central Terminal Devpt. Roland Grebhardt Design GreenacreFdtn. Greenwall Fdtn. GreenWoods Assoc. Gretes Research Svcs. Gruzman Sampton Haitian Ctrs. Council Harlem CDC Helicopter Noise Coal. of NYC Henry StreetSettlement F.B. Heron Fdtn. HNTB Corp. Hoke M. Co. Hope Program HERE/Local 100 HT Chen & Dancers Human Svcs. Council of NYC Hunter College H.S. Hurley &Haimowitz ICNA Relief Insight Assoc. IPA Intrepid Senior & Disabled Advocates Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman J.H. Cohn John Jay College J.P. Morgan Chase LaGuardiaCommunity Coll. Lauster & Radu Architects Lawrence Ruben Co. Legal Aid Society Little Guy Biz Fund Leon Lowenstein Fdtn. Lower Manhattan Cultural Council LowerManhattan Residents Relief Coal. Managed Storage Int’l Manhattan Borough President’s Ofc. Manhattan Youth Mayor’s Ofc. of Env’l Coord. Mayor’s Ofc. of Immigrant Affairs &Language Svcs. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Ctr. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. MTA MFY Legal Svcs. Milbank, Tweed Morningside Area Alliance MTFA Scattered Site Hsng.Museum of Chinese in the Americas Ofc. of Rep. Jerrold Nadler National Executive Service Corps. NBBJ Architects Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp. Neighbor to NeighborNetwork Newman Real Estate Inst. NY Artists Circle NYANA NY Blood Ctr. NY Fdtn. for the Arts NY Industrial Retention Network NY Urban League NYC Arts Coal. NYC Bd.Of Ed. NYC Cmsn. on Human Rights NYC Council NYC Dept. of City Planning NYC Dept. of Cultural Affairs NYC Dept. of Env’l Protection NYC EDC NYCHA NYC HPD

NYC IBO NYC Ofc. of the Comptroller NYC Ofc. of the Deputy Comptroller NYC Parks and Recreation Dept. NYC Partnership NYSAssembly NYS Attorney General’s Ofc.NYS Democrats Disability Issues Caucus NYS DOT NYS Div. of the Budget NYS Society of Professional Engineers NYU Protection & Mgmt. Svcs. Non-Profit Facilities Fund

Non Traditional Employmt. for Women O’Brien Kreitzberg O.K. Uniform Robert A. Olmstead, P.E. Parent to Parent of NYS Parsons Brinckerhoff Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton& Garrison Penn Plaza Brokerage Ltd. Perfect Land Sporters Permanent Citizens Advisory Cmte. of the MTA Port Authority of NY/NJ Protectors of Pine Oak Woods PrudentialFdtn. Queens Coll. Marion C. Pulsifer Consulting RealFurniture RebatesSaveInvest.com Charles H. Revson Fdtn. Riverdale Schl. Rockefeller Brothers Fund RockefellerFinancial Svcs. Corp. Rockefeller Fdtn. Rockland EDC Rose Assoc. The Rouse Co. Russ Communications Grp. Safe Horizon St. Barfalas Medicine Ctr. St. Lawrence Cement

Sam Schwartz Co. Seaport Surveys September’s Mission Fdtn. Ofc. of Rep. Jose Serrano Shorewalkers Sight Insight Sirus Fund SMART Skidmore, Owings & MerrillSolomon Partners Solomon Smith Barney S. Street Seaport Museum Staten Island Mental Health Soc. Stuyvesant H.S. STV Inc. Swanke Hayden Connell Architects SzekelyEngineering 10 Mile River Watershed Cmsn. Tepeyac de New York TIME Timothy Vincent Youth Toto Grp. Transit Alliance Transportation Alternatives Tribeca CommunityAss’n Tribeca Spiritual Ctr. Trimedia Tri-State Transportation Campaign UBS Paine Webber UNITE/Local 23-25 United Muslim Movement Against Homelessness UnitedWomen Firefighters Univ. of PA Univ. Settlement Society Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone URS Corp. US General Svcs. Admin. Verizon Vollmer Assoc. Wall StreetRising Andy Warhol Fdtn. for the Visual Arts Watermark Assoc. WET Electrics WHEDCO Woodrow Wilson School WTC Visual Memorial Inc. Zurich Scudder Investments

The 600 “Listening to the City” participants brought a diversity of ideas, backgrounds, and expertise to their table discussions. Some partic-ipants identified themselves as unaffiliated individuals and classified themselves as “unemployed garment worker,” “community organizer,”or “mother of victim.” Many attendees described themselves as members or representatives of city-wide or national organizations, agencies,or businesses. Below is a list of the self-identified attendee affiliations. The breadth of purpose of these entities attests to the strength of theinclusive process that the Civic Alliance embraces. The Civic Alliance continues to reach out to individuals and entities who are not repre-sented on this list, but who share an interest in adding their voice to the rebuilding process.

RE

PO

RT

DE

SIG

NE

D B

Y A

MA

ND

A S

PIE

LM

AN

The Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York would like to thank thefollowing organizations for their generous financial support:

Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Ford FoundationW.K. Kellogg Foundation

Commonwealth FundJM Kaplan Fund

Rockefeller FoundationSloan Foundation

Surdna Foundation

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual ArtsCharles H. Revson Foundation

Edna McConnell Clark FoundationFB Heron Foundation

Fund for the City of New YorkGeraldine R. Dodge FoundationSchumann Fund of New Jersey

For more information regarding the Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New York or “Listening to the City II,” please contact:

Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New Yorkc/o Regional Plan AssociationFour Irving PlaceNew York, NY 10003(212) 253-2727 [email protected]

Civic Alliance to Rebuild Downtown New Yorkc/o Center for Excellence in New York City GovernanceRobert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public ServiceNew York University269 Mercer Street, Room 203New York, NY 10003(212) [email protected]/wagner/excellence

Documents

LISTENING TO THE CITY - Amazon S3